Korea

[Jarnhamar]

Does anyone else think that maybe Iraq isn‘t the biggest threat to freedom in the world and maybe we should be more concerned with North Korea?

Now i know the big thing now is the "war on terrorisim" and we (or the states and britian) keep sending troops there because they‘re going to put up a **** of a fight just like last time (heh)but what exactly is going on with Korea? Listening to the news Korea seems to be trying to push peoples buttons. They keep threatening nuclear war if anyone bugs them or whatever, just today some of their jets followed a us recon plane. Im sure things will just go down hill from here. It seems to me like they want a war. How come it seems like were ignoring that? Maybe because the goverment doesnt want people to panic or something? Or something like the US (and i dont mean this in a rude way) doesnt know how to fight someone they can‘t just bomb into submission?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Think of Korea as the last holdout of the Cold War.

The policy during the Cold War was to wait out the hardline Communists in the Soviet Union, while maintaining a policy of mutual assured destruction.

I think it is rather the same thing in Korea. The US keep a steady show of force there so that the north won‘t invade the south. Eventually, the nutbars in the north are going to die off, and I suspect - rather like happened in the USSR - the people there will eventually find leadership who can see the level of prosperity in the south and want to abandon the communist ideal for greater peace and prosperity and happiness.

It didn‘t work that way in the USSR unfortunately; many believe they were better off under communism. Ironically, perhaps the best bet the North would have would be to start a war, lose it,and have the US pay to start a new democratic regime there as well as rebuild the infrastructure, etc. Mouse That Roared, anyone?

 

[onecat]

"Does anyone else think that maybe Iraq isn‘t the biggest threat to freedom in the world and maybe we should be more concerned with North Korea?"


I think North Korea is a bigger threat to world peace because they have no resouces, and the only products they can sell on the world market is rockets and well WMD‘s. Iraq was money and oil and can always get money to keep its nation running, so why would he Saddam sell the stuff..... on the other North Korea is ripe for terrorist money. And be because the Leader ( sorry can‘t rember his name) is crazy and not just evil like Saddam; I‘m sure he would sell them without a thought. He has nothing to lose, where as Saddam does. And there no staging gound in Korea, once the US starts sending troops there, North Korea knows the score. And like in teh first Korea war a quick attack works.

 

[Marti]

i think N. Korea is the reason the US is pushing so hard to attack Iraq. while N. Korea is the larger threat, the US realizes they would be able to take out the Iraqi threat quicker (pending all these delays in the UN), allowing them to concentrate completely on N. Korea. i guess in a political sense it also gives GW a better chance of defeating a foreign threat before the end of his term, but i can‘t imagine a politician using such an ugly scheme to maintain his popularity.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So how long do you think before everything explodes. Less then 5 years?

I just heard in the news today there was a Suicide bombing in israel.

For the last 2 months there have been no bombings, a few days ago for whatever reason Israel made a raid against whoever demolishing a few buildings, I think some people were killed in a shoot out/s. A few days later (today) theres a suicide bombing.

Im sure theres more to the story then that but the basic math seems simple.

Yup i give it less then 5 years.

 

[Pikache]

Actually, North Korea was ahead of South Korea in GNP until 70s, when Kim Il Sung did some really stupid things in terms of industry and Park Chung Hee revolutionalized South Korean industry.
North Korea has lots of natural resources and mineral deposits... they just don‘t know how to spend it wisely.

No way in **** North Koreans are going to rise in revolt, because a)they have no guns or any active opposition to current crackpot leader, b)basically brainwashed so they can‘t think in alternative terms and c)the military will beat the crap out of any dissent.
Kim Jong Il basically rules because the military supports him. Now for some reason the military is going along with Kim Jong Il‘s sabre rattling, (or is it the NK military actively encouraging this lunacy?) and they won‘t topple Kim unless they feel their powerbase is threatened, ie Kim goes too far with his rhetoric and acts of craziness.

A war with North Korea is what scares me more than a war with Iraq, not just in terms of casualties, but also economically.
I don‘t doubt that US, SK and allies can beat the crap out of NK. M1 Abrams vs. T54/55 and T62 is no match, well, even though Korea is very mountainous. Allied air and naval superiority means NK logistics will get the crap beaten out of them.
Then again, North Korean artillery can strike Seoul, which has a rather large population and the death toll will be bad.
South Korea is ranked probably somewhere top 10, or something close to it in economy in the world. Disruption of that economy will mean world market will suffer big. Very big.

And if North Korea figures that US will come after them anyways and they have nothing to do, they may indeed launch that invasion. (Based on how US is pushing Iraq)

 

[Jarnhamar]

A T55 is no match for an M1a1 but a Nuclear bomb makes up for their lack of armored assets.

:blotto:

 

[Pikache]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=5E0A10E6-945D-4EE1-818E-01EE03D7160A

U.S. defence chief suggests troops in South Korea should go home


Associated Press


Friday, March 07, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated Thursday he wants U.S. troops stationed near the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea to be moved farther from the heavily defended zone, shifted to other countries in the region or sent home.

The South Korean military, which has relied on U.S. forces to deter an attack from North Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953, is capable of defending the border itself, Rumsfeld said.

South Korea has an economy 25 or 35 times bigger than North Korea‘s, he said, and "has all the capability in the world of providing the kind of upfront deterrent that‘s needed."

The U.S. military, on the other hand, could play more of a secondary role by arranging its forces at an "air hub" and "sea hub" and as reinforcements for the South Korean front-line troops, he said during a question-and-answer session with a group of Pentagon civilians and troops.

President George W. Bush said later he expects South Korea and other countries with a stake in facing down the North‘s nuclear threat to present a united front.

China, South Korea, Japan and Russia "must stand up to their responsibility, along with the United States, to convince Kim Jong Il that the development of a nuclear arsenal is not in his nation‘s interests," Bush said.

The Bush administration wants to ensure other countries do not provide North Korea with economic assistance it has demanded from the United States.

There now are about 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, mostly army soldiers but also members of the air force, navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces. It is the second largest concentration of U.S. forces in Asia behind Japan, which has about 45,000.

"I suspect that what we‘ll do is we‘ll end up making some adjustments there," Rumsfeld said.

"Whether the forces would come home or whether they‘d move farther south on the Peninsula or whether they would move to a neighbouring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out."

Last week Richard Lawless, the deputy assistant secretary of defence for Asian and Pacific affairs, met with South Korean defence policy officials to discuss the future of U.S. troops.

A Pentagon statement released Thursday said Lawless and Lt.-Gen. Cha Young Koo, South Korean deputy defence minister for policy, agreed U.S. forces should move away from Seoul, the capital. It currently hosts the 8th Army‘s Yongsan headquarters, although it was not clear whether Lawless and Cha agreed on a new location. They did agree on a general approach to changes.

"Both parties agreed that adjustments to the combined capabilities must be done carefully in consideration of the overall security environment, including the military threat from North Korea," the statement said.

In response to recent North Korean moves to reactivate its nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon this week is sending 12 B-52 bombers and 12 B-1 bombers from U.S. bases to Guam, within striking distance of the Korean peninsula. Bush has said he believes the nuclear crisis can be resolved peacefully but last week he said he had not ruled out a military solution.

The major U.S. army combat unit in South Korea is the 2nd Infantry Division, based at Camp Red Cloud, on the northwestern edge of the city Uijongbu, immediately south of the DMZ. U.S. troops no longer patrol regularly inside the DMZ, which stretches about two kilometres north and south of the Military Demarkation Line that has separated the two Koreas since the end of the war.

The main U.S. air force units are the 51st Fighter Wing at Osan Air Base south of Seoul and the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, farther south of Seoul on the Yellow Sea coast.

In his remarks at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said the current arrangement of U.S. forces in South Korea is too inflexible.

"We still have a lot of forces in Korea arranged very far forward where it‘s intrusive in their (South Korean) lives, where they really aren‘t very flexible or useable for other things," he said.

In a similar vein, Rumsfeld said there is a need to adjust the U.S. force structure in Western Europe, where about 100,000 troops are permanently based, mostly in Germany. He noted in the 21st century the Pentagon needs more flexibility in moving and using forces without the need to obtain permission from governments that host the forces. He mentioned, as an example, Austria‘s recent refusal to permit U.S. troops in Germany to transit Austria en route to the Persian Gulf.

"The taxpayers of the United States can‘t have one military for the United States and another that‘s only useable when country A, B, C or D allows" it, he said.

© Copyright 2003 Associated Press